Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Special Digital Event: Key Trends and Drivers for Litigation Funding in 2023

January 27, 2023

Key Takeaways from LFJs Special Digital Event: Key Trends and Drivers for Litigation Funding in 2023

On January 25, 2023, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event: Key Trends and Drivers for Litigation Funding in 2023. The hour-long panel discussion and audience Q&A was live-streamed on LinkedIn, and featured expert speakers including William Farrell, Jr. (WF), Co-Founder, Managing Director and General Counsel of Longford Capital, Laina Hammond (LH), Co-Founder, Managing Director and Senior Investment Officer of Validity Finance, and Louis Young (LY), Co-Founder and CEO of Augusta Ventures. The discussion was moderated by Rebecca Berrebi (RB), Founder and CEO of Avenue 33, LLC. The discussion spanned a broad spectrum of key issues facing the litigation funding industry in 2023. Below are some key takeaways from the event: RB: How does your underwriting change, given the varied risks across different legal sectors? Do you have different IRR requirements for different case types or jurisdictions?   LH: At various points in time in our process, we are going to be assessing the risk of total loss. Antitrust, treaty arbitration, patent cases are riskier. When we’re calculating expected risk of loss, we take into account the various factors that make a case more risky—jurisdiction, collectability, other factors that dictate the IRR range. That is how we tie the risk factor to IRR, so the returns reflect the risk commensurate for any situation. WF: At Longford, our underwriting process remains the same across all legal sectors.  But risk assessment is unique across opportunities.  We look at 50 different characteristics for risk assessment.  At Longford, and I imagine the same is true at funders like Validity and Augusta, there is a very strong demand for our financing, so we are able to pick only the most meritorious cases, rather than pricing risk for a range of cases. LY: We have a very controlled process in our underwriting, and it’s conducted in a very stock-standard framework. But that framework is a continual iterative process. Our underwriting changes as we resolve cases through wins and losses, where you learn things that you didn’t know in underwriting. If we had to build a portfolio like we did for our first portfolio, which was 60-70 investments with $200MM invested—if that took us three years to build at the time, it would take us four or five years now, given the fact that we’ve learned so many other things as we’ve invested. Changes in financial modeling have become far more complex and nuanced as to the particular cases, so the outcomes and scenarios that we run now are far more detailed. RB: The last prolonged recession helped jumpstart the litigation funding industry in the US. If we do have a prolonged recession, what do you see as the prospects for the industry this time around? Can we expect the same growth post-recession?  LH: I think it’s tricky to accurately predict the impact of recessions on specialty industries like Litigation Finance, especially when the recession arises out of complicated geopolitical factors. That said, it’s entirely likely that a recession provides a boost for demand.  Legal services will always be in demand, and the cost of legal disputes is going to continue to rise. In tough economic conditions, companies might be pushed to consider litigation finance as an alternative to the self-funding that they historically use for their litigation. This could also lead to an infusion of capital into the market, as investors look for ways to diversify into alternative assets that are uncorrelated to the broader market. LY: I don’t know if the last recession did jump start the industry. I remember one of the first trips I did across the U.S. – this was around 2014 or so. And there were a whole set of law firms who didn’t know about litigation funding, so they were taking on the risk themselves—they were in effect acting as litigation funders. I think what really spurred litigation funding was the entrepreneurial bent of these law firms, who said to themselves ‘ok we’ve been taking this risk on for our clients, and here is a way we can de-risk ourselves.’ It was that mindset, and it happened so quick. In 2014, I introduced myself, and it was like, ‘Nice to meet you, here’s the door.’ Then two years later, it was happening. You just had very savvy, sophisticated people within the law firms who saw litigation funding for what it was, and they’ve become champions of it. And those same law firms are championing litigation funding even more now, and that will spur the industry forward. RB: What insurance products look most interesting right now, and are there any you’d like to see in the future? WF: Over the past two years, the insurance industry seems to have identified our industry as a new and attractive source of business for the insurance industry. There are significant synergies and similarities between litigation finance investments and insurance products, and for the moment, insurance markets seem to be most comfortable placing insurance on judgement preservation, and that is because they perceive cases at that stage of the lifecycle to be more easily understood, evaluated, and priced. But other products are popping up every day—insurance wrappers, which can be around an entire fund, or offer judgement preservation or principal protection, or they could be more bespoke and wrapped around particular subsets of investments. Offering insurance products for individual investors within a fund, uniquely designed for that particular investor’s risk tolerances is on the horizon, and will be made available to investors and funds in our industry. At the end of the day, the costs of these products will be most important in determining whether the Litigation Finance industry will be able to find a way to work with the insurance industry. The cost of these products will be taken directly from the returns that might otherwise be achieved without insurance, and the evaluation of these costs against the risk that is being protected against, is what will determine whether insurance becomes a meaningful part of our business. RB: What are your thoughts on the 60 Minutes piece, and the resulting publicity for the industry? Is this a net-positive—all publicity is good publicity, or would the industry benefit from being more under-the-radar, as there might be a mainstream outcry over a single bad actor that could malign the entire industry? WF: The Litigation Finance industry has made great strides over the past 10 years, particularly when it comes to awareness and acceptance of our offerings among all of the effected constituencies. Litigation Finance also levels the economic playing field, to where disputes among companies are resolved on the merits, rather than on the financial wherewithal and strengths/weaknesses of the litigants. So it’s good for the legal system. I think that the more awareness we can achieve, the more acceptance and more use we will see. I am opposed to flying under the radar—I like the idea that the more that people know about our industry, the more they will see that we are doing good, because we are helping people access justice which might not otherwise be there for them.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Merricks Urges UK Court to Reject Innsworth’s Challenge Over £200M Mastercard Settlement Distribution

By John Freund |

The class representative in the Merricks v Mastercard collective claim has urged a London court to reject litigation funder Innsworth Advisors' judicial review of the £200 million settlement distribution, in what observers describe as the first substantive test of a Competition Appeal Tribunal settlement decision.

As reported by Law360, Walter Merricks's legal team told the High Court on Wednesday that Innsworth has already received an adequate return from the CAT-approved settlement and that its challenge should be dismissed. Innsworth argued earlier in the week that the distribution scheme is "illogical" and "flawed," contending that the tribunal failed to properly assess the funder's recovery.

The CAT had divided the settlement into three pots. Pot 1, totalling £100 million, is ring-fenced for class members. Pot 2, approximately £45 million, covers Innsworth's litigation costs. Pot 3, approximately £55 million, allocates roughly £23 million to Innsworth as the profit element of its return, bringing its total recovery to around £68 million. Innsworth contends that this amounts to only a 0.5x return on more than £45 million invested, and disputes the methodology used to set the figure.

The case has drawn close attention from the UK funding sector. A judicial review of a CAT-sanctioned distribution could establish important parameters around how courts assess funder returns in collective proceedings, particularly at a moment when the tribunal has signaled heightened scrutiny of certification and take-up in entrepreneurial class actions.

Commercial

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice Imposes New Limits on Funders and Claim Aggregators in $590M Trucks Cartel Ruling

By John Freund |

The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Germany's Federal Court of Justice, has issued a closely watched judgment in the long-running Trucks Cartel litigation that upholds the use of collective claims vehicles in principle but sets significant guardrails around third-party litigation funding and claim aggregation.

As reported by Leaders League, the May 12, 2026 ruling addressed claims arising from the European Commission's 2016 cartel decision, brought on behalf of more than 3,000 entities across 21 jurisdictions and seeking approximately US$590 million. The BGH confirmed that cartel damages claims may be collectively aggregated and enforced by registered claims collection entities, reinforcing collective redress mechanisms in German private antitrust litigation.

The court imposed two material limits. First, third-party funders cannot exercise control that compromises the claims vehicle's obligation to act exclusively in the interests of the assignors, a conflict-of-interest standard that goes to funder governance rights. Second, claims aggregation cannot obstruct effective judicial review; excessive volume or complexity that renders proper assessment "impracticable" may violate the German Legal Services Act and result in dismissal for procedural abuse.

The BGH overturned the appellate decision and remanded the matter, directing the lower court to examine whether the funding structure created incompatible conflicts and, if the assignments survive, to divide claims within six months. The decision is expected to shape the architecture of funded collective antitrust actions across Europe, particularly in jurisdictions modelling Germany's claims-collection framework.

Commercial

Michigan House Passes Third-Party Litigation Funding Bill 60–45, Sending Measure to Democratic Senate

By John Freund |

The Michigan House of Representatives has approved House Bill 5281, a Republican-sponsored measure that would impose registration, disclosure, and contracting restrictions on third-party litigation funders operating in the state, advancing the bill to a Senate where Democrats hold a narrow majority.

As reported by The Center Square, the bill cleared the chamber on a 60–45 vote, with four Democrats joining Republicans in support: Tulio Liberati, Peter Herzberg, Angela Witwer, and Will Snyder. Sponsor Rep. Mike Harris framed the legislation in floor remarks by asking, "Who does it benefit to allow outside investors to influence decisions in Michigan courtrooms?"

The bill requires litigation funders to register with the Department of Insurance and Financial Services, pay a $10,000 application fee, and file annual reports on funding activity. It mandates a ten-day consumer cancellation window for funded contracts, prohibits kickbacks and referral fees, prohibits funder influence on case strategy, bans funding by foreign adversaries, and imposes caps on funder spending and recoveries from awards.

Backers cited industry analyses suggesting third-party litigation funding raises household costs through higher prices and lost tax revenue. The measure now heads to a Senate where Democrats hold an 20–18 majority and where the bill's path is uncertain. The House passage adds Michigan to the list of states considered most active on third-party funding regulation, alongside parallel efforts under way in Colorado, Florida, and Pennsylvania.